Transport Committee on June 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, I appreciate the member telling us what Canadians want, but I think part of that is that voters would expect him to actually show up at committee, and this is the second time in the last four months, so--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's not a point of order.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Jean should check the committee roster. I'm not a member of the committee.

Again, I would just say to the members here, here's what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said about this government's performance. He said that even though 63% of your municipalities wanted to get their projects under way by September 15--63% requested that--only 12.8% actually got under way.

That's the big difference between what the government says, and even pays for advertising for, and what actually happened. Only 3% of the money flowed to British Columbia, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, by that time, by the middle of September. That's according to the department's own data, released publicly, whereas around 45% of your members wanted to start their projects.

So the point here is that if you want to talk about being timely--you can get a lecture from Ms. Brown--timely did not happen from the government. It said in fact that the projects should have been started, with shovels in the ground, by May. They didn't reach their own target and they're passing the deadline on to you. Neither did they target in the sense of looking for places that needed help or that could use the extra construction. In fact, they went first to partisan ridings, until we caught them at it, and then they corrected somewhat in B.C., although there's still a very significant difference there.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Brown, on a point of order.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I believe that is out of order. I have spent as much time in other ridings that are not government-held ridings. I have put shovels in the ground. I have done ribbon cuttings. I mentioned the project I did in the riding of the leader of the opposition, at Humber College. So I think Mr. Kennedy is misleading the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. That's not a point of order; it's a point of debate.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Can I have your assurance it's not coming out of the time I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not. Your clock is off, but I'm starting it now.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the last time he was here, the mayor of Laval said it's the first time he has encountered a federal government that doesn't understand how municipalities work. That quote stands on its own.

But I want to ask for just a few points of clarification, because I think it's a very serious issue. At one time this Conservative group used to say there was one taxpayer. Now they're trying to pass costs on to the ratepayers all across the country.

Mr. Carlton, you said you didn't think having flexibility was an issue of fairness. Could you elaborate on that? In other words, will some of your members be upset when they hear other members, such as those in Vancouver, have had to fast-track design and construction and have had increased costs, and, for instance, that the City of Surrey has had pressures and they've paid a 10% premium? At Westsyde they have their other applications. We have northern communities that have run into very specific project problems that could not have been predicted ahead of time. Will the rest of the country be mad if these projects get the flexibility you're asking for today?

[Brock Carlton]

We've already had this conversation. We don't hear that from our members. In fact, Ms. Steele said that folks in Surrey who are chugging along very nicely would be very happy to know that some of their colleagues who are less fortunate and facing challenges that they hadn't anticipated would in fact have the opportunity to be as successful in their projects as Surrey has been in theirs.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Buda, you suggested that unanticipated costs happen in the normal course of infrastructure. Is it your contention, then, that the municipalities should absorb these unanticipated costs?

[Michael Buda]

It will depend, I think, on how those unanticipated costs occurred. As I said, municipalities chose projects to be completed by the deadline based on their understanding of when they would get approval from the federal and provincial governments. When you plan a complex infrastructure project, you plan for unanticipated events. You plan for ripping up the pavement and finding something you don't quite find--

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, but, Mr. Buda, I caught that point quite clearly. I'm asking you, though, in this particular instance, where for the first time ever there's an artificial hard deadline that municipalities wouldn't have dealt with before in such a rigid sense, whether you are saying that should be included as one of the things that municipalities should absorb. Your comments before seem to suggest that municipalities are always getting the unfair end of the stick, and therefore they might cover these costs too. Is that what you intended to say, or do you think they should be covered off on a flexible basis?

[Michael Buda]

I think it depends on why they didn't have enough time to meet those unanticipated events. In some cases, they have enough time to do it; in some cases, they don't. If they don't have enough time because of delays in project approvals that were the result of provincial and federal decisions, our contention is that there should be flexibility, so that municipal ratepayers aren't paying for that.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Nyce and Mr. Cunningham, could you comment? We have a survey of projects that is somewhat larger than the one done by the B.C. federation, and we see about 30% of projects having significant difficulty. Would you say that is a concern? I can't ask you to validate that--we'll share the study and the individual data with you--but I'm wondering if you can give us an idea. Certainly we see that it's about 50% of the municipalities, or somewhat less in terms of the numbers of projects. But in terms of the concerns of your members, if there is a large number, say even 20% or 25%, that have problems now, won't we have more unanticipated problems between now and the deadline? Aren't the chances of people finding themselves having to pass the costs onto their ratepayers simply going to go up between now and the March 31 deadline?

[Hans Cunningham]

Thank you.

That sort of calls for speculation. We just had our conference two weeks ago, and we did not have a great reaction from our members. I think if there had been widespread dissatisfaction with the program or the deadline, our membership would have told us at the conference, because they had the opportunity to do so then.

What we're talking about is flexibility for individual cases. You've heard me use the educational comparison, where we work with the one kid in the classroom who's not doing so well, even though the rest are. That's where we're coming from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

We must try to find a solution that would satisfy all parties. You can see that there are some political games going on here, whereas we would all like this to be done harmoniously. It would be the best thing for everyone.

Obviously, our committee has its limits. There are two ways of proceeding: the committee can issue a report and make recommendations to the government, or we can table a motion. Clearly, the power lies within the committee report, except that that implies there will be debates in the House and many political discussions. I do not believe that is the solution.

If we have the opportunity to do so, I will probably table a motion. I will read it to you and ask you what you think of it. It would read as follows:

Given the existing partnership between the municipalities, the provincial governments and the federal government since the creation of the infrastructure programs, our committee recommends that the government not penalize municipalities because of the deadlines set during the development of the infrastructure programs, the stimulus projects, the recreational infrastructure program and the pipeline renewal program. Local constraints beyond the control of municipalities should be taken into account.

I would like to know if you think this motion could be of interest. This is what I am thinking of doing, in the full knowledge that it would not have the weight of a report. What I want to do is to try and convince the government to do this, because we have done good work, that also must be said. The problem is that we have this deadline within the framework of these programs, because of the economic crisis, which is causing problems for some municipalities.

Is the motion that I just read something that would be of interest to you?

[Brock Carlton]

I find the motion to be very interesting for two reasons. First of all, it reinforces the idea that there is a partnership between the three levels of government, and that is important. Secondly, it is exactly what we are saying: that there were circumstances beyond the control of the municipalities, and that there must be some flexibility.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Nyce?

[Harry Nyce]

We agree with that. Administration flexibility is called for, and it's important that we look at that. The stimulus program is working.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.